On 25-4-2011 18:09, Jim Henderson wrote:
> On Mon, 25 Apr 2011 13:03:11 +0200, andrel wrote:
>
>>> Rational - as in scientifically backed evidence, you'd reject?
>>
>> yes
>>
>>> I still find that quite unusual.
>>
>> Why? I am 99% sure you would do the same.
>
> Why do you say that?

Because that is what humans do. (I am just guessing you are a human, no 
real evidence for that)

>>> I can see that, but for my view, I see 'religious atheism' as being
>>> self- contradictory, because for me atheism has to do with rationality,
>>> and rationality is more or less the opposite of religion.
>>>
>>> So I find your position quite interesting, and am interested in hearing
>>> more. :)
>>
>> Nothing new that I have not said in the past. - I don't see how I can
>> base any ethics/morality on the existence of a God.
>
> OK, I agree with that - because when it comes to morality or ethics, the
> religions I've read about are pretty thin on both.

It is in any case a problem with the Jewish God and the two other main 
religions that worship the same God. There are lots of rules but not 
much of metarules so you can derive the rules yourself. You are not 
allowed to eat pigs, but why? Thou shalt not kill. Ok, but is that in 
general or only humans? What is a human anyway? Is a Jew a human? Is a 
Christian not more than a dog? These may seem silly questions, but in 
any war the religious men often start by excluding the enemy from the 
human race. When becomes an embryo a human? Is there a point when 
Altzheimer's disease patients loose all humanity?
Or (just to show I am Dutch) what is the problem with sex? Why is 
prostitution wrong? Why are hard drugs wrong and if they are why are 
they consuming wine as part of a ritual?
The major problem with a single Jewish type God is that you can not know 
what the rules are. Apparently he has given some rules to some people, 
but do you believe these people when they say so? These rules are 
sometime contradictory, so at least one of them was lying, but which? 
There is no way any man can know.

Buddhism is possibly a better option, but I do not know enough about it 
to be sure.

Anyway a long time ago I found my own way to figure out what to do and 
what not. Being an atheist meant that I had to do most of the work 
myself. Af first I thought that if it didn't work out I could always 
fall back on an imaginary God, then I realized that I couldn't for among 
others the reason mentioned above. That is why if there would turn out 
to be a God after all, I have a severe philosophical problem. 
Essentially an existential one.

>> Admitting to the
>> existence of one or more of these things would result in a few months of
>> work in rewiring my brain to undo all traces of 4 decades of thinking.
>> That is too much to ask. - Almost everything in my working live as a
>> scientist has been implicitly based on the notion that all life has a
>> common origin. (I wonder if most creationist realise that when they
>> visit a hospital they enter into a world that was impossible without
>> Darwin). Again I will resist any concept that invalidates everything I
>> have done. - when I look at a tree I can see how it is related to me.
>> (And also of course the obvious things that don't look like me). I don't
>> want to give up that feeling for the idea that it is just an object that
>> I can treat any way I like.
>>
>> I think that many atheists have similar reasons for not believing in
>> some God even presented with 'convincing' evidence. Luckily we don't
>> have to fear that that moment will ever come. This in contrast to
>> creationists that are confronted with being wrong everyday. (and again
>> they will think something similar).
>
> So it has to do more with ethics and morality, then?

Not only, it also has to do with the fact that the world makes sense 
without a God, whereas I have yet to see a theistic religion with a 
coherent world view that is not contradicted by simple facts.

>>> Well, I wouldn't believe it either, there have been plenty of crackpots
>>> who have claimed to be the 'second coming' (for example).  That doesn't
>>> constitute proof of any kind.
>>
>> I was more thinking about a non-human being that was able to do things
>> that no human can. e.g. generate and direct lightning towards an
>> infidel, change a stick into a snake, or pull a live rabbit out of an
>> empty hat.
>
> Well, yes - things that could be an illusion or trick are different.
> Such a being would have to show how the trick was done.

You mean, that there was no trick involved?

>>>>>>> That undermines not only teaching real science, but the ability for
>>>>>>> students to think about problems in a rational way.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Are Americans worse programmers than Japanese?
>>>>>
>>>>> I have no data to support one being better than the other.  Do you?
>>>>
>>>> When Japan became industrialized a couple of decades ago, they started
>>>> with copying things and then imported foreigners that were in thinking
>>>> not bound to the traditional ways, i.e. creative and daring. Only then
>>>> were they able to design new things. Or at least that was the
>>>> chauvinist western view a couple of years ago.
>>>>
>>>> The thing to test here is if Japanese programmers are improving and
>>>> native US ones getting worse. Perhaps comparing them to countries
>>>> whose inhabitants do not accept any authority (like the Netherlands ;)
>>>> )
>>>
>>> I'm not seeing how this comes back to my comment above about the
>>> ability for students to think about problems in a rational way....
>>
>> I had chosen deliberately a country where students for another reason
>> were supposedly not trained in critical thinking.
>
> I hadn't heard that about the Japanese before, that's why I'm not getting
> the reference.  Can you cite something that I can read to catch up on
> that idea in Japanese culture?

Actually, no. It is something I heard so often and for such a long time, 
that I don't know a particular source. Basically the concept is that 
Japanese are so drilled in obeying the more powerful that they become 
incapable of original though. Because they would contradict a known 
authority. Basically the same concept as used for the middle ages in 
Europe (with the Europeans and the Muslims as the two sources that broke 
the chain). In both cases I am not sure how much it really explains.


-- 
Apparently you can afford your own dictator for less than 10 cents per 
citizen per day.

Post a reply to this message

On 25-4-2011 18:08, Darren New wrote:
> On 4/25/2011 4:03, andrel wrote:
>> - I don't see how I can base any ethics/morality on the existence of a
>> God.
>
> I think if the god in question has scientifically-backed evidence, it's
> unlikely to be a god that has anything to do with human ethics or morality.
>
> I.e., I'd agree with you with the god of the bible, but I can't imagine
> what form scientific evidence in support of that god might be. But there
> are lots of ways one can imagine to find the creator of the universe
> exists that hasn't anything to do with specifically creating life on
> earth or morality. For example, the "fine tuned universal constants"
> argument, if actually supported, would be evidence (not proof) of a
> creator that maybe was aiming for carbon/water based life, but saying
> nothing about Earth, morality, humans, etc.

That is exactly the sort of evidence I would refuse to believe ;)


-- 
Apparently you can afford your own dictator for less than 10 cents per 
citizen per day.

Post a reply to this message

On 25-4-2011 18:30, Darren New wrote:
> On 4/25/2011 9:10, Jim Henderson wrote:
>> On Sun, 24 Apr 2011 16:38:24 -0700, Darren New wrote:
>>
>>> So I stop believing in god if he actually shows up? I think you have
>>> that backwards.
>>
>> Quoting Douglas Adams:
>>
>> "Proof denies faith and without faith, I am nothing."
>
> You are conflating "belief" with "faith". "Faith" is unjustified belief.
> Belief can be justified or not, correct or not. It's a state of mind not
> necessarily indicative of the real world or not.
>
> Is it still faith if you're right? If god really turns out to exist,
> would you say all those people with faith no longer had faith because
> they were right all along?

I was wondering if anyone would quote the Oolon Colluphid books, but 
didn't want to be the one who did.

The longer quote (about the existence of the babel fish) is:
---
Now, it is such a bizarrely improbable coincidence that anything so 
mind-bogglingly useful could have evolved purely by chance that some 
have chosen to see it as the final proof of the NON-existence of God. 
The argument goes something like this: "I refuse to prove that I exist," 
says God, "for proof denies faith, and without faith I am nothing." 
"But," says Man, "the Babel fish is a dead giveaway, isn't it? It could 
not have evolved by chance. It proves that You exist, and so therefore, 
by Your own arguments, You don't. QED" "Oh dear," says God, "I hadn't 
thought of that," and promptly vanishes in a puff of logic. "Oh, that 
was easy," says Man, and for an encore goes on to prove that black is 
white and gets himself killed on the next zebra crossing.
---
It should be noted that most leading theologians claim that Colluphid's 
argument is "a load of dingo's kidneys."
---


-- 
Apparently you can afford your own dictator for less than 10 cents per 
citizen per day.

Post a reply to this message

On Mon, 25 Apr 2011 21:42:38 +0200, andrel wrote:

> I was wondering if anyone would quote the Oolon Colluphid books, but
> didn't want to be the one who did.

I was happy to oblige.  :)

Jim

Post a reply to this message

On Mon, 25 Apr 2011 21:28:06 +0200, andrel wrote:

> On 25-4-2011 18:09, Jim Henderson wrote:
>> On Mon, 25 Apr 2011 13:03:11 +0200, andrel wrote:
>>
>>>> Rational - as in scientifically backed evidence, you'd reject?
>>>
>>> yes
>>>
>>>> I still find that quite unusual.
>>>
>>> Why? I am 99% sure you would do the same.
>>
>> Why do you say that?
> 
> Because that is what humans do. (I am just guessing you are a human, no
> real evidence for that)

Well, I am, but I also am secure in knowing that I don't know (or need to 
know) everything there is to know.  I guess maybe that makes me unusual, 
as the reason many invent (or believe) in a deity is to explain things 
that can't be explained - which would stem from not being able to cope 
with having things that can't be explained.

But I think I am starting to see what you're saying.

>> OK, I agree with that - because when it comes to morality or ethics,
>> the religions I've read about are pretty thin on both.
> 
> It is in any case a problem with the Jewish God and the two other main
> religions that worship the same God. There are lots of rules but not
> much of metarules so you can derive the rules yourself. You are not
> allowed to eat pigs, but why? Thou shalt not kill. Ok, but is that in
> general or only humans? What is a human anyway? Is a Jew a human? Is a
> Christian not more than a dog? These may seem silly questions, but in
> any war the religious men often start by excluding the enemy from the
> human race. When becomes an embryo a human? Is there a point when
> Altzheimer's disease patients loose all humanity? Or (just to show I am
> Dutch) what is the problem with sex? Why is prostitution wrong? Why are
> hard drugs wrong and if they are why are they consuming wine as part of
> a ritual? The major problem with a single Jewish type God is that you
> can not know what the rules are. Apparently he has given some rules to
> some people, but do you believe these people when they say so? These
> rules are sometime contradictory, so at least one of them was lying, but
> which? There is no way any man can know.

So perhaps it would be accurate to say that you wouldn't believe in a 
deity as a moral/ethical authority.  Now *that's* something I would agree 
with.

> Buddhism is possibly a better option, but I do not know enough about it
> to be sure.

Nor do I if it comes to that.  I describe myself as non-theistic, and 
some parts of Buddhism seem to align with that, and some don't.

> Anyway a long time ago I found my own way to figure out what to do and
> what not. Being an atheist meant that I had to do most of the work
> myself. Af first I thought that if it didn't work out I could always
> fall back on an imaginary God, then I realized that I couldn't for among
> others the reason mentioned above. That is why if there would turn out
> to be a God after all, I have a severe philosophical problem.
> Essentially an existential one.

That makes sense to me.  It isn't about "some superior being created all 
tihs" but that whole idea of morals and ethics.  OK, I'm with you now, 
both in understanding and in agreement with the concept.

>> So it has to do more with ethics and morality, then?
> 
> Not only, it also has to do with the fact that the world makes sense
> without a God, whereas I have yet to see a theistic religion with a
> coherent world view that is not contradicted by simple facts.

True, but I would suspect that this idea (a theistic religion with a 
coherent world view that doesn't contradict the observable universe) 
might be something you'd accept as a possibility, without the moral/
ethical entanglements.

>>>> Well, I wouldn't believe it either, there have been plenty of
>>>> crackpots who have claimed to be the 'second coming' (for example). 
>>>> That doesn't constitute proof of any kind.
>>>
>>> I was more thinking about a non-human being that was able to do things
>>> that no human can. e.g. generate and direct lightning towards an
>>> infidel, change a stick into a snake, or pull a live rabbit out of an
>>> empty hat.
>>
>> Well, yes - things that could be an illusion or trick are different.
>> Such a being would have to show how the trick was done.
> 
> You mean, that there was no trick involved?

Well, there could be a trick involved, but it would have to be a trick 
that could be exposed and duplicated.

For example, if I make a silk handkerchief vanish into thin air (a trick 
I know how to do and, for the sake of argument, you don't), I could show 
you how it works.  Then you'd know the trick, but there still is a trick, 
but it has to do with misdirection more than the spontaneous creation and 
destruction of the handkerchief itself.

>> I hadn't heard that about the Japanese before, that's why I'm not
>> getting the reference.  Can you cite something that I can read to catch
>> up on that idea in Japanese culture?
> 
> Actually, no. It is something I heard so often and for such a long time,
> that I don't know a particular source. Basically the concept is that
> Japanese are so drilled in obeying the more powerful that they become
> incapable of original though. Because they would contradict a known
> authority. Basically the same concept as used for the middle ages in
> Europe (with the Europeans and the Muslims as the two sources that broke
> the chain). In both cases I am not sure how much it really explains.

I'll have to ask my brother (in Japan) about that.

Jim

Post a reply to this message

On 4/25/2011 10:33, Jim Henderson wrote:
> But if you listen to it and say "Ah, that's Partida #1 by J. S. Bach",
> you don't have to believe it is, because you know it is.

You're just using the word "belief" to mean what I'd mean by "belief but not 
certainty."  I don't think becoming certain of something means you stop 
believing it; quite the opposite. I don't think believing something that 
turns out to be true means you've stopped believing it either.

If I open my eyes and say "I believe the sun is up already", and then I get 
out of bed and open the curtain and it's all bright and blue sky out, would 
you really say "I no longer believe the sun is up"?

-- 
Darren New, San Diego CA, USA (PST)
   "Coding without comments is like
    driving without turn signals."

Post a reply to this message

On 4/25/2011 10:35, Jim Henderson wrote:
> On Mon, 25 Apr 2011 10:31:09 -0700, Darren New wrote:
>
>> If it doesn't stop being
>> faith just because you're right, it doesn't stop being belief just
>> because you have justification for the belief.
>
> But it does stop being faith when you have knowledge that you are
> correct.  Faith is by definition trusting rather than knowing.

Right. Just like you can have faith in something that turns out to be true, 
you can have a belief in something of which you are certain.

-- 
Darren New, San Diego CA, USA (PST)
   "Coding without comments is like
    driving without turn signals."

Post a reply to this message

On Mon, 25 Apr 2011 14:09:12 -0700, Darren New wrote:

> On 4/25/2011 10:35, Jim Henderson wrote:
>> On Mon, 25 Apr 2011 10:31:09 -0700, Darren New wrote:
>>
>>> If it doesn't stop being
>>> faith just because you're right, it doesn't stop being belief just
>>> because you have justification for the belief.
>>
>> But it does stop being faith when you have knowledge that you are
>> correct.  Faith is by definition trusting rather than knowing.
> 
> Right. Just like you can have faith in something that turns out to be
> true, you can have a belief in something of which you are certain.

But it's not necessary - because you are certain, right?

Jim

Post a reply to this message

On 4/25/2011 12:28, andrel wrote:
> That is exactly the sort of evidence I would refuse to believe ;)

That seems odd to me. You're saying that if someone came up with 
scientific-quality evidence that we're all living in a computer simulation 
being run by someone else, or that the big bang was actually initiated and 
structured on purpose by someone trying to survive the previous Big Crunch, 
you simply wouldn't believe that? Even if one gathered as much evidence in 
favor of one of those as there is in favor of evolution?

That's weird to me.

-- 
Darren New, San Diego CA, USA (PST)
   "Coding without comments is like
    driving without turn signals."

Post a reply to this message

On Mon, 25 Apr 2011 14:08:32 -0700, Darren New wrote:

> On 4/25/2011 10:33, Jim Henderson wrote:
>> But if you listen to it and say "Ah, that's Partida #1 by J. S. Bach",
>> you don't have to believe it is, because you know it is.
> 
> You're just using the word "belief" to mean what I'd mean by "belief but
> not certainty."  I don't think becoming certain of something means you
> stop believing it; quite the opposite. I don't think believing something
> that turns out to be true means you've stopped believing it either.
> 
> If I open my eyes and say "I believe the sun is up already", and then I
> get out of bed and open the curtain and it's all bright and blue sky
> out, would you really say "I no longer believe the sun is up"?

No, because I no longer need to assert a belief that the sun is up.  I 
know it's up - that's a testable and provable state.

It becomes unnecessary to believe it, but that it becomes unnecessary 
doesn't mean it is necessary to state explicitly that the belief is 
unnecessary.

But if I were to describe the change in state, it would be "I no longer 
need to believe that the sun is up - I know it is."

IOW, it's not that finding out causes disbelief, it removes the need for 
belief because it's demonstrably true.

Jim

Post a reply to this message